Can you imagine that commanding Resistant priests is liking trying to herd cats?

Can you imagine?

Is it unimaginable?

In which case, is it worth trying if it is bound to fail?

It may be better not to attempt than to attempt and fail.

Some of you may think it would be better to attempt because it might succeed.

I don’t have the authority.

If…, if…, if… by some miracle, Pope Francis rang me up next week and said:

—Your Excellency, you and I have had our divergences, but right now I am authorizing you to found a society. You go right ahead for the good of the Church.

—Holy Father, can I have that in writing? Do you mind if I come to Rome and get that with your signature?

—Yes, of course.

—Alright, then I’d be on the next plane to Rome. I’d be on the next plane to Rome!

All right, class, compare and contrast.

Quote:

Avrillé Dominican's Letters n° 87 (May 13, 2014)

Towards a “canonical recognition of tolerance” ad tempus

In the April-May issue (no. 88) of Le Rocher, the bulletin of the SSPX Swiss District, on the question of an eventual agreement with Rome, Bishop Fellay responded: “Right now [that is, under Pope Francis], that would be foolish.” We fully agree. We also think that that would have been just as foolish under Popes John Paul II and Benedict XVI. We only need to consider all those who have made an agreement with the conciliar Church and who have all betrayed the fight for the faith, without exception.

Nevertheless, despite these remarks, Bishop Fellay announced at the same time to the seminarians at Zaitzkoffen, Germany, that if Rome itself agreed to a recognition of the Society, he could not see why he should refuse it. One of the assistants reported a little after the news with enthusiasm to the superiors of religious communities, explaining that this recognition would be ad tempus (temporary). An authority of the Society confirmed that Bishop Fellay hoped to obtain a recognition of tolerance.

The April 2014 issue of the Angelus magazine is already preparing the terrain for the faithful:

"For the SSPX to wait until the Romans’ full doctrinal conversion to put itself into their hands is unrealistic. . . . The SSPX has for so long kept its distance from Rome that it risks losing all Catholic sense of hierarchy, obedience and authority."

While failing to understand how a “canonical recognition” would not be insane, whereas an “agreement” with Rome would be, these affirmations and this new perspective bring us to a number of considerations:

—when the faith is in question, gradual conversion is not possible, contrary to what happens when it is only morals at stake. One has the faith or one does not have it. The negation of a single truth suffices to lose all the Catholic faith. The only solution for moving closer to Rome is to wait for its complete conversion.

—to maintain our distance from modernist and apostate Rome is the only way to keep our faith intact. This includes faith in the primacy of Peter. Therefore, there is no need to worry: we have not lost the sense of hierarchy and authority.

—a canonical recognition of tolerance ad tempus would only be a granting of parole, where one is “free”, as long as he behaves himself... Rome will not tolerate attacking the actions of the pope, publicly saying that people must not attend the new “Mass”, that John-Paul II is not a saint, etc. When Fr. de Cacqueray wrote an excellent text against Assisi IV, Cardinal Levada told Bishop Fellay that it was unacceptable, and the result was that the General House then remained silent and did not put out a single communiqué to protest against this scandalous meeting. A canonical recognition would be inevitably a condemnation to silence, as the history of the Ecclesia Dei communities has proven beyond the shadow of a doubt. As soon as a priest dares to break the silence, and attacks the scandals of modernist Rome, he will be sanctioned unmercifully by the General House, which will do all in its power to maintain the “official recognition” that it so much desired and at last obtained.

Let’s not forget the accord granted to Le Barroux monastery. Here is what they stated at the time:

“We have signed this agreement under two conditions:

* that this event not be a discredit to the person of Archbishop Lefebvre;

*that no doctrinal or liturgical counterpart be required of us, and that no silence be imposed on our anti-modernist preaching.1”

Le Barroux now defends religious liberty and ecumenism, and the monks regularly concelebrate the new Mass when they are outside of the monastery. Those who tried to resist have been thrown out. Is this not clear?

Some object that “as long as nothing has been signed, there’s nothing to worry”. No, because the desire to attain recognition from Rome has already started to paralyze the battle of the Faith for the salvation of souls! So as not to offend the authorities, criticism of the current scandals have become more and more rare2. The faithful will already have the “Ecclesia Dei” spirit even before anything is signed.

-------------------------------------------------

1. Dom Gérard, in the 18 August 1988 issue of the journal Présent.

2. At best, we still see some criticism of Vatican II, but the current authorities are rarely called into question. For example, the letter of protest against the recent “canonizations” was actually a critique of Vatican II. The question of Pope Francis’ personal responsibility is not addressed.

What is sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander. Or not!

Now, browse around the Internet and observe with what devotion various people are furiously parsing Bishop Williamson's comments so as to make them fit their own ideas (ideas they got, largely, from His Lordship in the first place, but never mind...).

_________________In Christ our King.

Sat Jun 21, 2014 4:53 am

Derek Nelson

Joined: Sat May 31, 2014 11:03 pmPosts: 4

Re: Bishop Williamson channels Fr. Aulagnier et al.

One of the first things that struck me about the publication of Avrillé Dominican's Letters n° 87 was that these newsletters come with this notice: for private distribution to tertiaries only. The Resistance is so full of disorder it's members can't even adhere to the rules set forth by their individual religious congregations.

It's also important to consider the following when we observe such hypocrisy and contradiction from various characters:

Quote:

We observe with astonishment the prominent men of the Convention, the sworn enemies of kings, men who would have neither gods nor masters, become the humble servants of Napoleon, and afterwards, under Louis XVIII, piously carry candles in religious processions.

...In literature, art, and philosophy the successive evolutions of opinion are more rapid still. Romanticism, naturalism, mysticism, &c., spring up and die out in turn. The artist and the writer applauded yesterday are treated on the morrow with profound contempt.

...When, however, we analyse all these changes in appearance so far reaching, what do we find? All those that are in opposition with the general beliefs and sentiments of the race [culture] are of a transient duration, and the diverted stream soon resumes it's course. The opinions which are not linked to any general belief or sentiment of the race, and which in consequence can not posses stability, are at the mercy of every chance, or if the expressions be preferred, of every change in the surrounding circumstances. Formed by suggestion and contagion, they are always momentary; they crop up and disappear as rapidly on occasion as the sandhills formed by the wind on the sea coast. At the present day the changeable opinions of crowds are greater in number than they ever were, and for three different reasons.

The first is that as the old beliefs are losing their influence to a greater and greater extent, they are ceasing to shape the ephemeral opinions of the moment as they did in the past.

...The second reason is that the power of crowds being on the increase, and this power being less and less counterbalanced, the extreme mobility of ideas, which we have seen to be a peculiarity of crowds, can manifest itself without let or hindrance.

Finally, the third reason is the recent development of the newspaper press, by whose agency the most contrary opinions are continually brought before the attention of crowds. The suggestions that that might result from each individual opinion are soon destroyed by suggestions of an opposite character. The consequence is that no opinion succeeds in becoming widespread, and that the existence of all of them is ephemeral.

- Gustave Le Bon, "The Crowd: Study of the Popular Mind" pp. 91-92

Sat Jun 21, 2014 11:18 pm

Admin

Site Admin

Joined: Tue May 16, 2006 2:30 pmPosts: 4334

Re: Bishop Williamson channels Fr. Aulagnier et al.

Derek Nelson wrote:

One of the first things that struck me about the publication of Avrillé Dominican's Letters n° 87 was that these newsletters come with this notice: for private distribution to tertiaries only. The Resistance is so full of disorder it's members can't even adhere to the rules set forth by their individual religious congregations.

It's also important to consider the following when we observe such hypocrisy and contradiction from various characters:

Derek, just a note on the distinction between those opposed to any agreement prior to Roman conversion and the so-called Resistance. The two are very different sets. I am one of those in the first set, obviously, and yet I can't stand the Resistance, which is truly just a revolutionary movement which serves to divide the clergy and faithful and especially to rip people away from Holy Mass. The Dominicans are not necessarily "Resistance" either, and I think you will find that over time quite a number of other more serious men show that they are not to be associated with it.

_________________In Christ our King.

Sun Jun 22, 2014 12:12 am

Derek Nelson

Joined: Sat May 31, 2014 11:03 pmPosts: 4

Re: Bishop Williamson channels Fr. Aulagnier et al.

John Lane wrote:

Derek Nelson wrote:

One of the first things that struck me about the publication of Avrillé Dominican's Letters n° 87 was that these newsletters come with this notice: for private distribution to tertiaries only. The Resistance is so full of disorder it's members can't even adhere to the rules set forth by their individual religious congregations.

It's also important to consider the following when we observe such hypocrisy and contradiction from various characters:

Derek, just a note on the distinction between those opposed to any agreement prior to Roman conversion and the so-called Resistance. The two are very different sets. I am one of those in the first set, obviously, and yet I can't stand the Resistance, which is truly just a revolutionary movement which serves to divide the clergy and faithful and especially to rip people away from Holy Mass. The Dominicans are not necessarily "Resistance" either, and I think you will find that over time quite a number of other more serious men show that they are not to be associated with it.

You're right, John. I wasn't saying that the Dominicans of Avrille are a Resistance religious congregation, but a congregation that some in the Resistance belong to. The "various characters" are individual members of the Resistance who cling and grasp at contradictory sources and opinions to justify following celebrity rouges. I can see how my post lacked this distinction.

Sun Jun 22, 2014 12:47 am

Admin

Site Admin

Joined: Tue May 16, 2006 2:30 pmPosts: 4334

Re: Bishop Williamson channels Fr. Aulagnier et al.

Yes, and of course The Resistance is a movement of ex-SSPX members and laity, whereas men such as the Dominicans, no matter how opposed to a deal, are really quite separate from the SSPX and the difference of opinion in 2012 has only served to highlight that organisational separation. Incidentally, that may not be a bad thing. It would be nice to have some Dominicans who think for themselves and don't feel bound to identify with a party line.

_________________In Christ our King.

Sun Jun 22, 2014 6:19 am

Thomas Williams

Joined: Tue Mar 27, 2012 9:15 pmPosts: 60

Re: Bishop Williamson channels Fr. Aulagnier et al.

Anyone here know about how many Dominicans there are in Avrille? It's my understanding that 10 or 11 of them now identify as "Resistance," but when I looked around I couldn't find a number for total Dominicans at Avrille (at least as of the last several years).

_________________Thomas Williams

Tue Jun 24, 2014 12:49 am

Admin

Site Admin

Joined: Tue May 16, 2006 2:30 pmPosts: 4334

Re: Bishop Williamson channels Fr. Aulagnier et al.

Thomas Williams wrote:

It's my understanding that 10 or 11 of them now identify as "Resistance,"

What does that mean, Thomas?

_________________In Christ our King.

Tue Jun 24, 2014 3:15 am

Thomas Williams

Joined: Tue Mar 27, 2012 9:15 pmPosts: 60

Re: Bishop Williamson channels Fr. Aulagnier et al.

John Lane wrote:

Thomas Williams wrote:

It's my understanding that 10 or 11 of them now identify as "Resistance,"

What does that mean, Thomas?

Exactly what it means, I'm not 100% sure (which is why I thought the quotation marks appropriate), but from what I've read on other Trad forums these 10-11 Dominicans object to the SSPX making an agreement with Rome (this sounds a little odd, as it's my understanding that Avrille is connected to the SSPX, but not in the SSPX proper -- am I mistaken?) and are routinely counted as clergy in the (loosely) organized Resistance.

Checking around, the name Pierre-Marie, O.P. is counted by Resistance laity as being of the Resistance, as well as the stat "10 priests Dominicans of Avrillé (7 from France, 2 from USA, 1 from Poland)."

_________________Thomas Williams

Tue Jun 24, 2014 4:20 am

Admin

Site Admin

Joined: Tue May 16, 2006 2:30 pmPosts: 4334

Re: Bishop Williamson channels Fr. Aulagnier et al.

Thomas Williams wrote:

John Lane wrote:

Thomas Williams wrote:

It's my understanding that 10 or 11 of them now identify as "Resistance,"

What does that mean, Thomas?

Exactly what it means, I'm not 100% sure (which is why I thought the quotation marks appropriate), but from what I've read on other Trad forums these 10-11 Dominicans object to the SSPX making an agreement with Rome (this sounds a little odd, as it's my understanding that Avrille is connected to the SSPX, but not in the SSPX proper -- am I mistaken?) and are routinely counted as clergy in the (loosely) organized Resistance.

Checking around, the name Pierre-Marie, O.P. is counted by Resistance laity as being of the Resistance, as well as the stat "10 priests Dominicans of Avrillé (7 from France, 2 from USA, 1 from Poland)."

Ah, OK, don't believe anything at all those people ever say, about anything. If they tell you the time, check your watch. (Their latest is that the SSPX seminary in Argentina is teaching Bultmann to the seminarians. This is manifestly ridiculous and has been denied by people who would certainly know, yet the allegation is trumpeted all the louder. It's like "truth" is a label for whatever weirdness comes into their heads, while "evil" is whatever anybody they dislike does or says. It's hard to believe most of them are adults, let alone Christians. I'm told that the Cathinfo people were recently celebrating the notion that Mrs Obama is actually a man. I don't know whether to be primarily disgusted at their lack of charity towards real people, or astonished at their stupidity. Extreme stupidity does, after all, tend to militate against a charge of a lack of charity.)

I'm against a deal, and certainly more so than any of the sedeplenists who constitute the bulk of the Resistance. I doubt you'll see my name on their list... So, the Dominicans are against a deal. They always were. I don't think they could realistically be described as "Resistance" and I doubt they'd want to be so named.

Oh, and there's no deal and Bishop Fellay's glad.

_________________In Christ our King.

Tue Jun 24, 2014 4:51 am

Admin

Site Admin

Joined: Tue May 16, 2006 2:30 pmPosts: 4334

Re: Bishop Williamson channels Fr. Aulagnier et al.

Well, it looks like the Dominicans are completely gone. Publicly, and worse, formally, associating with Williamson and Pfeiffer. I am disgusted. So much for their love of theology.

_________________In Christ our King.

Sat Jul 19, 2014 5:29 am

Thomas Williams

Joined: Tue Mar 27, 2012 9:15 pmPosts: 60

Re: Bishop Williamson channels Fr. Aulagnier et al.

John Lane wrote:

Well, it looks like the Dominicans are completely gone. Publicly, and worse, formally, associating with Williamson and Pfeiffer. I am disgusted. So much for their love of theology.

It's the topic of today's Eleison Comments:

Bishop Richard Williamson. wrote:

Number CCCLXVII (367) July 26, 2014

FRANCE STIRS

Many of you know that on Tuesday and Wednesday of last week was held in the Dominican Friary of Avrillé close to Angers in North-west France a meeting of resistant priests from wherever the “Resistance” is up and running, but mainly from France. This was the third such meeting of French priests held in Avrillé since the beginning of the year, and it was the most important. This time they began to co-ordinate and to organize their activities in France, a country often decisive for the Church in various ways.

The credit for calling these meetings goes to the Prior of Avrillé, Fr Pierre-Marie. For several years Avrillé has been offering support and a refuge to priests of the Society of St Pius X who have been finding their priestly life more and more difficult under its present leadership, whose pursuit of reconciliation with the Newchurch in Rome is, despite the disguise and denials, relentless. Only a few weeks ago the Society’s Second Assistant is reported to have said, “The train is leaving for Rome, and those who want to get off will get off.” For as long as possible Fr Pierre-Marie sought not to break off relations with the official SSPX, but earlier this year came the letter from Bishop Fellay finalising the rupture. That was inevitable, unless Avrillé would also betray Tradition.

Originally Fr Pierre-Marie designed last week’s meeting for the French priests, but I suggested to him that resistant priests from outside France might also be invited for a double reason: the priests from outside would be encouraged to see the “Resistance” stirring in France, where it has stirred little – outwardly – up till now, and the French priests in turn might be reminded that there is not only France. Fr Pierre-Marie accepted my suggestion, and that is how it turned out, some 18 priests in all.

The meeting went very well. There was little looking back and no bitterness, much looking forward. The first day’s business was largely for the French priests. They began by nominating as their co-ordinator Fr. de Mérode, a priest from Belgium with 30 years’ experience in the SSPX, all over the world. Then for their organisation being born they chose the name of “Priestly Union of Marcel Lefebvre,” a name that announces clearly the orientation. And finally Fr. De Mérode began organising a network of Mass centres all over France – back to the 1970’s, but in harsher conditions, and with very limited resources, at least for the moment.

The second day’s business was given over to international concerns for the defence of the Faith, and here of course arose the question of episcopal consecrations, because I for one wished to know the mind of the priests present. It was relatively unanimous. Readers will be encouraged to know that while the priests thought that the time for consecrations had not yet come, nevertheless it could not be too far off. For indeed as of now it is very difficult to imagine any of the three bishops who remain within the SSPX undertaking to consecrate anybody without the approval of |Rome, and it is impossible to imagine neo-modernist Rome approving of any anti-modernist candidate! Patience.

Do pray, both for the quiet success of the budding Priestly Union, and for God to give us, in his good time, the additional bishops needed for the defence of the Faith.

A non-exclusive license to print out, forward by email, and/or post this article to the Internet is granted to users who wish to do so provided that no changes are made to the content so reproduced or distributed, to include the retention of this notice with any and all reproductions of content as authorized hereby. Aside from this limited, non-exclusive license, no portion of this article may be reproduced in any other form or by any other electronic or mechanical means without permission in writing from the publisher, except by a reviewer who may quote brief passages in a review, or except in cases where rights to content reproduced herein are retained by its original author(s) or other rights holder(s), and further reproduction is subject to permission otherwise granted thereby.

The meeting went very well. There was little looking back and no bitterness, much looking forward. The first day’s business was largely for the French priests. They began by nominating as their co-ordinator Fr. de Mérode, a priest from Belgium with 30 years’ experience in the SSPX, all over the world. Then for their organisation being born they chose the name of “Priestly Union of Marcel Lefebvre,” a name that announces clearly the orientation. And finally Fr. De Mérode began organising a network of Mass centres all over France – back to the 1970’s, but in harsher conditions, and with very limited resources, at least for the moment.

The second day’s business was given over to international concerns for the defence of the Faith, and here of course arose the question of episcopal consecrations, because I for one wished to know the mind of the priests present. It was relatively unanimous. Readers will be encouraged to know that while the priests thought that the time for consecrations had not yet come, nevertheless it could not be too far off. For indeed as of now it is very difficult to imagine any of the three bishops who remain within the SSPX undertaking to consecrate anybody without the approval of Rome, and it is impossible to imagine neo-modernist Rome approving of any anti-modernist candidate! Patience.

Do pray, both for the quiet success of the budding Priestly Union, and for God to give us, in his good time, the additional bishops needed for the defence of the Faith.

So it's not an international union of priests, but rather a French one. Bishop Williamson is not a member, clearly.

And the plan is to consecrate at least two bishops. The repeated use of the plural is clear also.

_________________In Christ our King.

Sun Jul 27, 2014 12:07 am

Admin

Site Admin

Joined: Tue May 16, 2006 2:30 pmPosts: 4334

Re: Bishop Williamson channels Fr. Aulagnier et al.

Thoughts about this.

1. The French priests don't want any formal association with the non-French ones. Loads of further thoughts follow from that one...

2. The Dominicans are not formally associating with Bishop Williamson after all. He is one of two possible sources of Holy Orders at present, and the most secure one at that. They evidently feel that they have to stay on good terms with him until an alternative crystallises, which is prudent.

3. It is not clear that the Dominicans are members of this new Pious Union. The notion does seem odd, since they already are organised - they have a monastery, after all. It seems much more likely that the new association exists solely to organise the ex-SSPX priests.

4. Bishop Williamson's "reported to have said" is rubbish, of course. No such "report" exists. To be accurate, the sentence should read something like, "I have a heard a rumour that the Society’s Second Assistant said..." And a funny rumour it is, having laid hidden for three weeks and nobody else seems to have heard it. Of course, I am assuming that Bishop Williamson didn't just make it up out of whole cloth...

_________________In Christ our King.

Mon Jul 28, 2014 12:07 am

Jorge Armendariz

Joined: Thu Oct 27, 2011 5:14 pmPosts: 210

Re: Bishop Williamson channels Fr. Aulagnier et al.

John Lane wrote:

Derek Nelson wrote:

One of the first things that struck me about the publication of Avrillé Dominican's Letters n° 87 was that these newsletters come with this notice: for private distribution to tertiaries only. The Resistance is so full of disorder it's members can't even adhere to the rules set forth by their individual religious congregations.

It's also important to consider the following when we observe such hypocrisy and contradiction from various characters:

Derek, just a note on the distinction between those opposed to any agreement prior to Roman conversion and the so-called Resistance. The two are very different sets. I am one of those in the first set, obviously, and yet I can't stand the Resistance, which is truly just a revolutionary movement which serves to divide the clergy and faithful and especially to rip people away from Holy Mass. The Dominicans are not necessarily "Resistance" either, and I think you will find that over time quite a number of other more serious men show that they are not to be associated with it.

John its funny you mention this, I bolded the particular part where I completely agree with you. Yet, in another post you did on the Una cum issue you seem to contradict yourself.

Quote:

John Lane: As I say, I may be right for the wrong reasons, and they might be wrong for excellent reasons. So, on judgement day they will receive their reward, but not for being right, rather, for being good.

The resistance is RIGHT, but for the wrong reasons. They reject the New Rites. Call the Pope a heretic, call the new Bishop's heretics. Want to throw away Vatican II in the dumpster. Completely reject in TOTO all canonizations, no questions asked.

The Neo-SSPX is wrong, but for the right reasons. Accepts the New Rites. Therefore, it leads to great spiritual losses. For confessing once in a while to a layman, if it was any mortal sins. Of what good will all those masses do to you, even if they are valid. If you are receiving them, under the impression your sins have been forgiven you. Now to presume that somehow you have made a perfect act of charity, is a bit presumptuous.

If you just would see things clearly John... With you the problem is not intellectual, because very clearly your principles are in the right place. I completely agree with you, at the end of the day it matters whether you were right or wrong. Whichever side is the wrong side, will very likely suffer grievous spiritual maladies.

Ergo, be pro-resistance Sedevacantist, because that position logically leads people to the true Catholic position of Sedevacantism. I would highly encourage the Resistance among the SSPX faithful. You are safer when you get a Si Si, No no response. With the resistance there is no doubt what they equivocally hold, with the Neo-SSPX it is always a dialectic.

Yes, the new Mass is valid, but... Most new priest's are modernist, but if you find one that is not (you can attend his masses), etc... I can go ad infinitum...

I love Fr. Albert very much, he is an excellent priest. He is the reason I did not go to the Novus Ordo traditional religious monasteries. I owe him quite a debt, and he is also the one who shocked me straight up. When he told me that Ratzinger was a formal heretic, and not just a material heretic. My pious ears, were burning the first time he told me that. Bishop Lefebvre was always careful not to say that the Conciliar Popes, were explicitly formal heretics. He would always use every single possible adjective possible to describe them (smells of heresy, reeks of heresy, flavours of heresy, dangerous etc...), but never to the point. In our discussions I would defend vehemently Ratzinger, and he would totally destroy my responses. So after that point, I pretty much avoided studying the issue as it was pretty clear to anyone who has eyes to see that he was indeed right.

I guess I owe a great debt to that Dominican priest, for having further confirmed a doubt that I have had ever since I learned my catechism. I had a great religion teacher, and I owe him a great debt too.

I know Fr. Albert has read St. Thomas cover to cover, the Summa twice and obviously he has read some parts more than others. He is an excellent priest, even at his age he still studies like if he was barely starting. He really inspired me very much, and I was very edified by his virtuous studiosity. If only more men would lead a life like that, this world would be so different. By the way thanks for posting the PDF, I was not aware of these things. I had not kept up with what was happening in Europe with the religious I have heard a bunch of different things. Most of them are attached to the resistance, but I am not sure what the Dominicans have sided with.

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Bing [Bot] and 6 guests

You cannot post new topics in this forumYou cannot reply to topics in this forumYou cannot edit your posts in this forumYou cannot delete your posts in this forumYou cannot post attachments in this forum